This unfair labor practice case is before the Authority in
accordance with section 2429.1(a) of the Authority's Rules and
Regulations based on a stipulation of facts by the parties, who
have agreed that no material issue of fact exists. The General
Counsel and the Respondent filed briefs with the Authority.

The complaint alleges that the Respondent violated section
7116(a)(1), (5), and (6) of the Federal Service Labor-Management
Relations Statute (the Statute) by unilaterally terminating a
compressed work schedule (CWS) program for bargaining unit
employees when negotiations over its extension were at impasse and
the Union had requested the assistance of a mediator from the
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS). For the
following reasons, we find that the Respondent's actions did not
violate the Statute, as alleged in the complaint.

II. Facts

The Union is the exclusive representative of a unit of
nonprofessional employees at Respondent's facilities. On August
30, 1990, the Respondent and the Union agreed to implement a CWS
test program for unit employees for 6 months. The parties also
agreed to a 90-day extension period and that if the CWS program
was to be extended beyond 90 days, the Respondent was obligated to
notify the Union and bargain over the extension. On April 24,
1991 the Respondent and the Union agreed to extend the CWS test
program for an additional month.1/ On June 17, the parties agreed
to extend the CWS test program through the close of business of
June 17.

On June 19, the Respondent presented the Union with a written
proposal for a 6-month extension of the CWS test program. On June
20, the Union proposed a 4-month extension of the CWS program.
The Respondent told the Union that a 6-month test was necessary to
obtain meaningful test results and that if an agreement was not
reached on a 6-month extension, it would substitute nonunit
employees in the test. The Union stated that it would not agree
to a 6-month extension. The negotiation session ended with the
parties at impasse. The Respondent told the Union that, based on
the Union's rejection of the Respondent's proposal, it would
commence a 6-month extension of the CWS test program on July 1,
without unit employees.

On June 21, the Respondent informed the Union that the
Respondent's position was unchanged and asked the Union to
reconsider its position. The Respondent reminded the Union that
it would proceed with a 6-month extension of the CWS test program
on July 1, without the participation of unit employees, if the
Union did not agree to a 6-month extension. On June 24, the
Respondent again contacted the Union to determine if the Union was
willing to agree to a 6-month extension. The Union informed the
Respondent that its position had not changed. On June 28, the
Respondent hand-delivered a letter to the Union stating that
effective July 1, it would proceed with a 6-month extension of the
CWS test program, without the participation of unit employees.
Although the record indicates that the Union steadfastly
maintained that it would not agree to a 6-month extension of the CWS test program, nothing in the record indicates that the
Union ever requested the Agency to delay commencement of the
6-month extension of the CWS test program without unit employees.

On July 1, without having previously indicated or otherwise
communicated its desire to continue negotiations to resolve the
impasse concerning the parties' differences as to the extension of
the CWS test program, the Union hand-delivered a letter to the
Respondent stating that a mediator from the FMCS had agreed to
meet with the parties on July 3, to attempt to resolve the
parties' differences concerning the extension of the CWS test
program. On July 3, the Respondent told the Union that there was
no need to meet with a mediator or discuss the matter further
since the Union had refused to agree to a 6-month extension. The
Respondent also informed the mediator that, on July 1, the CWS
test program had been terminated for unit employees and extended,
for 6 months, for nonunit employees only.

III. Positions of the Parties

A. General Counsel

The General Counsel contends that the Respondent violated
section 7116(a)(1), (5), and (6) of the Statute by refusing to
meet with an FMCS mediator and the Union to bargain over the
Union's CWS proposal. Citing American Federation of Government
Employees, Local 1934 and Department of the Air Force, 3415 ABG,
Lowry AFB, Colorado, 23 FLRA 872 (1986) (Lowry AFB), the General
Counsel argues that the CWS involved in this case is fully
negotiable and if parties reach impasse on CWS proposals, they are
required to submit their dispute to the Federal Services Impasses
Panel (the Panel). Citing Department of Health and Human
Services, Social Security Administration and Social Security
Administration, Field Operations, Region II, 35 FLRA 940 (1990)
(SSA, Region II), the General Counsel argues that an agency
violates section 7116(a)(1), (5), and (6) of the Statute when it
changes conditions of employment of unit employees when
negotiations are at impasse and the union invokes the services of
the Panel.

The General Counsel argues that, as the parties had reached
an impasse in their negotiations over the extension of the CWS
program, the Respondent was required to: (1) afford the Union
sufficient time to seek the assistance of the Panel prior to
implementation; and (2) maintain the statusquo "to the greatest
extent possible consistent with the functioning of the Activity,
pending resolution of the impasse." G.C.'s Brief at 9. The
General Counsel maintains that the Union timely requested the
assistance of the FMCS and that the Respondent's selection of July
1, as the date of implementation of the CWS test was not dictated
by "any exigency . . . ." Id. at 12.

As a remedy, the General Counsel requests that the Respondent
be ordered to: (1) restore the statusquo; (2) meet with a
mediator from the FMCS and the Union; and (3) complete bargaining
on the extension of the CWS program.

B. Respondent

The Respondent contends that it did not violate section
7116(a)(1), (5), and (6) of the Statute. First, the Respondent
argues that the "totality of conduct" demonstrates that management
negotiated in good faith and intended to reach an agreement with
the Union on the extension of the CWS test program. Respondent's
Brief at 3.

Second, the Respondent contends that it did not violate the
Statute because "no change was implemented." Id. at 2. According
to the Respondent, when the first CWS test period expired on June
19, by agreement of the parties, "bargaining unit employees no
longer had the option of participating in CWS." Id. Therefore,
the Respondent maintains that "no change in conditions of
employment occurred since management maintained the status quo by
initiating the CWS test . . . without bargaining unit members."
Id.

Third, the Respondent contends that it was not obligated to
meet with the FMCS mediator because the Union's proposal for a
4-month extension was not negotiable. The Respondent maintains
that the Union's proposal addressed an aspect of the CWS program
that was a permissive subject of bargaining under section
7106(b)(1) of the Statute. According to the Respondent, "[t]he
design and duration of the test were the methods of performing the
tasked work." Id. at 4.

IV. Analysis and Conclusions

A. Work Schedules Act

The Federal Employees Flexible and Compressed Work Schedules
Act of 1982 (Work Schedules Act) provides that an

exclusive representative may negotiate with an agency for the
establishment of flexible and compressed work schedules for
bargaining unit employees.2/ 5 U.S.C. § 6130(a)(1). Alternative
work schedules for bargaining unit employees are fully negotiable
within the limits set by the Work Schedules Act. SeeU.S.
Department of the Air Force, 416 CSG, Griffiss Air Force Base,
Rome, New York, 38 FLRA 1136, 1147 (1990). SeealsoAFSCME, Local
2027 and Action, 28 FLRA 621, 623 (1987) (AFSCME). The duty to
bargain over the establishment and termination of AWS programs
includes the duty to bargain on matters pertaining to the
implementation and administration of those schedules. SeeNational Association of Government Employees, Local R12-167 and
Office of the Adjutant General, State of California, 27 FLRA 349,
352-54 (1987) (State of California), reversed as to other matters
sub nom.California National Guard and DoD v. FLRA, 854 F.2d 1396
(D.C. Cir. 1988). Because AWS for bargaining unit employees are
fully negotiable within the limits set forth in the Work Schedules
Act, there are no issues pertaining to the negotiability of those
schedules which the Authority will consider under section 7117 of
the Statute, insofar as those issues concern an alleged conflict
with the Statute. SeeState of California at 351-52. SeealsoAir Force Accounting and Finance Center, Denver, Colorado, 42 FLRA
1196, 1205 (1991); National Treasury Employees Union, Atlanta,
Georgia and U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue
Service, 32 FLRA 879, 881-83 (1988).

Based on Lowry AFB and State of California, we reject the
Respondent's contention that the Union's proposal was
nonnegotiable under section 7106(b)(1) of the Statute. We also
conclude that the substance of the decision to terminate a CWS
program is negotiable. SeeDefense Logistics Agency, Defense
Industrial Plant Equipment Center, Memphis, Tennessee, 44 FLRA 599
(1992).

B. Section 7116(a)(1), (5) and (6)

Where parties are bargaining over a proposed change in
conditions of employment, an agency is generally obligated to
maintain the statusquo pending the completion of the bargaining, including impasse procedures. See generally, National
Weather Service Employees Organization and U.S. Department of
Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Weather Service, 37 FLRA 392, 395-97 (1990). SeealsoUnited States Immigration and Naturalization Service, U.S. Border
Patrol, San Diego Sector, San Diego, California, 43 FLRA 642,
652-53 (1991), petition for review filed sub nom.United States
Immigration and Naturalization Service, United States Border
Patrol v. FLRA, No. 92-70119 (9th Cir. Feb. 13, 1992); U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security
Administration, Baltimore, Maryland, 39 FLRA 258, 262-63 (1991).
Further, once a party timely invokes the services of the Panel,
the statusquo must be maintained to the extent consistent with
the necessary functioning of the agency, in order to allow the
Panel to take whatever action is deemed appropriate. See, for
example, SSA, Region II, 35 FLRA at 948-51; U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development and U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development, Kansas City Region, Kansas City, Missouri, 23
FLRA 435, 436-38 (1986). Failure to maintain the statusquo, to
the extent consistent with the necessary functioning of an agency,
while an impasse is pending before the Panel violates section
7116(a)(1), (5) and (6) of the Statute. See, for example, U.S.
Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
Washington D.C., 44 FLRA 1065, 1072-73 (1992), petition for review
filed sub nom.U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration and
Naturalization Service v. FLRA, No. 92-4652 (5th Cir. June 24,
1992); Department of the Air Force, Scott Air Force Base,
Illinois, 42 FLRA 266, 271-73 (1991). The Work Schedules Act
requires that negotiation impasses concerning the establishment
and termination of CWS programs be presented to the Panel in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 6131(c)(2) and part 2472 of the Panel's
Rules and Regulations. Lowry AFB, 23 FLRA at 873-74. SeealsoAFSCME, 28 FLRA at 623.

In this case, when the parties reached impasse over the
Respondent's proposal to extend the CWS test program for 6 months,
the Union did not request the services of the Panel. Rather, the
Union sought assistance from the FMCS. However, unlike the
impasse resolution procedures set forth in section 7119 of the
Statute and 5 C.F.R. part 2471, neither the Work Schedules Act nor
the Panel's regulations implementing the Act, 5 C.F.R. part 2472,
require affected parties to seek mediation assistance or mention
the FMCS. As such, we find that the General Counsel has not
demonstrated that the Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1), (5),
and (6) of the Statute by failing to cooperate in impasse
proceedings or by failing to maintain the statusquo during the
pendency of such proceedings.

Further, the General Counsel has not established that the
Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute by
unilaterally implementing a change in conditions of employment.
In this regard, the stipulated record reflects that the parties
agreed to extend the CWS program only until the close of business
June 17. Moreover, the General Counsel does not dispute the
Respondent's contention that the CWS test program expired on June
19, and has presented no evidence to the contrary. The record
further reflects that following the termination of the program,
the parties did not agree to an extension of the CWS program for
unit employees and that the CWS program the Respondent implemented
on July 1, related to nonunit employees only. In these
circumstances, we conclude that the General Counsel has failed to
establish that the Respondent unilaterally changed a condition of
employment in violation of the Statute. See, for example, U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Administration Medical
Center, Memphis, Tennessee, 42 FLRA 712 (1991); U.S. Environment
Protection Agency, 35 FLRA 674 (1990).

Based on the foregoing, we will dismiss the complaint in its
entirety.